Metaphysics as an Error

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[jamest]

Evidently, you are satisfied with blowing the assertion of whatever you want to "show" out of some hole or other. Do some fucking work on this, James, or go back to your fucking psych module.

I'd much rather discuss your obsession with arses, blowing and fucking. I don't see the point in going beyond this realm, as - apparently - you don't know how to say or think about anything without relating it to said concepts. A bit of psychoanalysis might do your metaphysical outlook the world of good.

[jamest]

I'm asking you if there are trees. But I am trying to avoid committing to a materialist view of trees. So. Do we have a bunch of information about something that we call trees?

Do you not understand the distinction between the information of something, and its reality? Are there trees? Or is there information about trees? Do you know what question you are asking? Do you understand the fuggin difference between each of these questions?

Wow. I address the difference in the piece that you quoted. I said originally said treeness instead of 'are there trees'. I said information about trees instead of 'are there trees'. You still refuse to answer the question.

Let the mods take note that I prefer not to be called a dork.

Let the mods note the distinction between a request and an accusation, unlike yourself.
Further, I shall continue to ignore your waffle about trees until it becomes clear and that I see that it is relevant. At the moment, I am clueless on both counts.

[SpeedOfSound]

I'm asking you if there are trees. But I am trying to avoid committing to a materialist view of trees. So. Do we have a bunch of information about something that we call trees?

Do you not understand the distinction between the information of something, and its reality? Are there trees? Or is there information about trees? Do you know what question you are asking? Do you understand the fuggin difference between each of these questions?

Wow. I address the difference in the piece that you quoted. I said originally said treeness instead of 'are there trees'. I said information about trees instead of 'are there trees'. You still refuse to answer the question.

Let the mods take note that I prefer not to be called a dork.

Let the mods note the distinction between a request and an accusation, unlike yourself.
Further, I shall continue to ignore your waffle about trees until it becomes clear and that I see that it is relevant. At the moment, I am clueless on both counts.

Ignoring direct questions. I see.

Maybe I can help you. Lets see you support this assertion by an argument, not by stating it is fact.

Let's first savour the fact that metaphysical scepticism is based upon an unfounded and limited view of what the empirical realm IS.

Prove that this is the foundation of our skepticism.

[SpeedOfSound]

Let the mods note the distinction between a request and an accusation, unlike yourself.
Further, I shall continue to ignore your waffle about trees until it becomes clear and that I see that it is relevant. At the moment, I am clueless on both counts.

Is it relevant to talk about empirical data? In light of your posts and claims about empirical data I think it is. My treeness question is a direct question about empirical data.

[Surendra Darathy]

Prove that this is the foundation of our skepticism.

I'm sorry to do this to you, Speedy, but isn't the notion of founding skepticism on something a bit of an oxymoron?

I realise you know this, but don't get poor James all balled up in an attempt to declare the foundation of anything!

[FBM]

Some of the recent comments made in this thread are currently being discussed by the staff. For the last time, I'm asking you guys to tone it down with the personal attacks, however indirect or thinly veiled. If the discussion degenerates into nothing more than childish and stubborn bickering, there's no point in having it.

Update: No action will be taken. If you feel a post is in violation, please use the report button.

[SpeedOfSound]

Prove that this is the foundation of our skepticism.

I'm sorry to do this to you, Speedy, but isn't the notion of founding skepticism on something a bit of an oxymoron?

I realise you know this, but don't get poor James all balled up in an attempt to declare the foundation of anything!

Well that was what he said not me. He claims it to be fact so I wanted to see how he got there.

[Surendra Darathy]

Prove that this is the foundation of our skepticism.

I'm sorry to do this to you, Speedy, but isn't the notion of founding skepticism on something a bit of an oxymoron?

I realise you know this, but don't get poor James all balled up in an attempt to declare the foundation of anything!

Well that was what he said not me. He claims it to be fact so I wanted to see how he got there.

Of course, you know that "metaphysical facts" are simply statements exhaled by "Very wIse Persons". Online, there is no limit to what can be claimed. Apparently, there are only limits to impatience.

Maybe I can help you. Lets see you support this assertion by an argument, not by stating it is fact.

Let's first savour the fact that metaphysical scepticism is based upon an unfounded and limited view of what the empirical realm IS.

Prove that this is the foundation of our skepticism.

"Truth" be told, skepticism is simply an acceptance of a limited view of the fundamental essence of ANYTHING.

Skepticism and Truth are simply different approaches to exhaling. In the former, you breathe easy. In the latter, you hold your breath. To be self-evident.

[TheArtfulDodger]

And as James has been trying to get across in this thread, in order to explore empiricism and the 'error' of metaphysics, you have to get your hands dirty on what it is to 'observe'.

It is metaphysically possible that Berkeleyian Idealism is absolutely true.
It is metaphysically possible that Lockean Empiricism is absolutely true.
It is metaphysically possible that Kantian Transcendental Idealism is absolutely true.

By what means should we determine which metaphycisal possibility is absolutely true of our actual world?

As I see it, the main problem with jamest's 'classical' understanding of the mind/experience is that it leaves any empirical event grossly underdetermined.

[jamest]

Maybe I can help you. Lets see you support this assertion by an argument, not by stating it is fact.

Let's first savour the fact that metaphysical scepticism is based upon an unfounded and limited view of what the empirical realm IS.

Prove that this is the foundation of our skepticism.

I've already done so, when I discussed how 'something' [that is not a 'thing' amidst the empirical realm] has to be integral to that realm. That is, since this 'something' is instrumental in constructing empirical data, and since empirical data is essentially an event happening to/within this something, that any definition of empirical data that failed to include this 'something', was limited and ultimately erroneous.

[GrahamH]

Maybe I can help you. Lets see you support this assertion by an argument, not by stating it is fact.

Let's first savour the fact that metaphysical scepticism is based upon an unfounded and limited view of what the empirical realm IS.

Prove that this is the foundation of our skepticism.

I've already done so, when I discussed how 'something' [that is not a 'thing' amidst the empirical realm] has to be integral to that realm. That is, since this 'something' is instrumental in constructing empirical data, and since empirical data is essentially an event happening to/within this something, that any definition of empirical data that failed to include this 'something', was limited and ultimately erroneous.

So you are saying that empirical data is not absolute truth?

[jamest]

I've already done so, when I discussed how 'something' [that is not a 'thing' amidst the empirical realm] has to be integral to that realm. That is, since this 'something' is instrumental in constructing empirical data, and since empirical data is essentially an event happening to/within this something, that any definition of empirical data that failed to include this 'something', was limited and ultimately erroneous.

So you are saying that empirical data is not absolute truth?

What?

[GrahamH]

I've already done so, when I discussed how 'something' [that is not a 'thing' amidst the empirical realm] has to be integral to that realm. That is, since this 'something' is instrumental in constructing empirical data, and since empirical data is essentially an event happening to/within this something, that any definition of empirical data that failed to include this 'something', was limited and ultimately erroneous.

So you are saying that empirical data is not absolute truth?

What?

Emprical data is not complete, so what? Whether it is ultimately erroneous or not is not determinable, but we can say that it works.

How do you propose to 'include this something in the definition of empirical data'?

You could make up an un-falsifiable story and claim it is 'the absolute truth of the something itself', but any number of other un-falsifiable stories will serve just as well. Why should any such story be taken as 'metaphysical truth'?

[Luis Dias]

The continuous evasion and invitation for posters to get psychological advice is the only thing one can take out from jamest nowadays. This shows two things for me: his philosophical position is damaged beyond repair, his quixotic battle lost and confused, and that he should be ignored from now on. He does not understand that the "ex-rectum" references he's getting are metaphors for the lack of apparent criteria between a valuable "speech" and farting in Jamest's rantings.

At least, Kenny is attempting at a dialogue. Jamest is in the exercise of proving his own material which will be done just if everyone with a different opinion shuts up. Either that, or the willful dismissal of any controversy.

This is true when we see things like:

I also think that the question implies a defence of materialism,

... which underlines the unwillingness of being challenged. If one denies any challenges that one sees as a threat to our point of view, we do not end up wiser, we end up in an eco-chamber. Of course, what is he doing here, then? He answers:

I'd much rather discuss your obsession with arses, blowing and fucking. I don't see the point in going beyond this realm, as - apparently - you don't know how to say or think about anything without relating it to said concepts. A bit of psychoanalysis might do your metaphysical outlook the world of good.

We have shown by the evidence then that Jamest is behaving as a troll, and that if anyone else wants to know how to treat a troll, here's a clue: